Today the Senate confirmed Justin Walker to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. President Donald Trump’s critics are crying foul, this time because the American Bar Association (ABA) rated Walker “not qualified.” Not surprisingly, there’s more to the story.

Four studies (here, here, here, and here) over the last two decades have all found systematic bias by the ABA in its ratings of Republican nominees. It’s no wonder that Democrats, led by Senators Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) have claimed that the ABA rating is the “gold standard” for evaluating nominees.

The ABA states its rating policy in bold on its ratings website: “In all circumstances, the majority rating is the official rating of the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.” Presidents of both parties have nominated individuals with “not qualified” ABA ratings, and most have been confirmed without any opposition.

In August 1993, for example, President Bill Clinton nominated Alexander Williams to the U.S. District Court in Maryland. Both the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate approved the nomination without opposition.

One year later, Clinton nominated David Katz to the U.S. District Court in Ohio. Again, both the Judiciary Committee and full Senate approved the nomination without any opposition.

In September 2001, President George W. Bush nominated David Bunning to the U.S. District Court in Kentucky. At his hearing, then Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy said: “Neither the ABA nor the Senate Judiciary Committee expect [the ABA’s] recommendations to be dispositive.” It wasn’t. Both the committee and full Senate approved the Bunning nomination without opposition.

>>>View the Judicial Appointment Tracker

In May 2003, Bush nominated Roger Benitez to the U.S. District Court in California. After unanimous Judiciary Committee approval, Benitez received just a single negative vote for confirmation.